From: Ian Goddard (iam@doubled.com)
Date: Fri Oct 24 1997 - 13:51:40 MDT
Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net) wrote:
> ...the property claims/grants that predate the formation of the US
>Government are not subject to US government law as a matter of the
>landlord principle. Of the 13 original states, the only property which
>could possibly be construed as belonging to the Federal government is
>the District of Columbia (and a fine example of landlord stewardship
>they have made of that, eh?). There are also property grants to
>individuals that predate US claims in the Lousiana Purchase, Sewards
>Folly(Alaska), and the original Northwest Territory (the area north of
>and between the Missisipi and Ohio rivers up to the Canadian border).
>
>In any event, for the origianl 13 states, since their state governments
>predate the US government, they hold original claim on property in their
>jurisdiction, except for that property granted to individuals directly
>by the King of England. For the present owners of these properties, they
>have inherited or bought the free association rights to maintain or
>secede the relationship of their property with the state and federal
>governments.
IAN: If you live on the same piece of land that
your x great grandparents lived on prior to the
formation of the U.S., I believe that you are not
subject to federal or state laws on your property.
But arguably once you pass into U.S. territory you
are subject to a tax that equals annual income tax.
But, where then in the transfer of that property
to others was sovereignity ceded to the U.S.? Hmmm.
Ergo, when did rightful ownership by the U.S. actually
begin? I can't say, except when the property owner
accepted the validity of the Union, which I expect
most did, sooner or later. I will also except the
demand of a robber for my wallet sooner or later.
The argument I've used against the U.S. is that
just because a group of guys got together and
yelled to others "We're your government, send
us money and stuff," does not justify their
claim to such authority apart from the fact
that they could round up more guns than me.
However, the fact is that I was born into a
world upon which preexisting claims were made.
Those people whose claims were violated and who
violated them are all dead now. I have to respect
those claims that preceded me. This is actually a
very atomist angle for a holistic logic guy like me.
There is no possibility of determining legitimate
owner of the U.S., therefore, by default, ownership
goes to the longest standing claimant, the U.S. govt.
One problem is that we expect the world to be perfect,
and anything short of that must be abolished. But it's
NEVER going to be like that. We're not going to live on
a planet with a perfect chain of ownership all the way
back to "Adam and Eve" (so to say). Philosophy must
be principled AND practical. If our current state
of justice depends upon correcting all historic
wrongs, we're never going to get to a current
justice. We have to deal with what we have,
and start with principled standards now.
>As for states relationships to the federal gov't, New Hampshire, for
>example, has a Constitution that predates the US Constitution, and
>recognises the right of the state and local governments to secede
>from the union.
IAN: But until they officially secede, you would be
subject to U.S. law, i.e., terms of Union membership.
>> You do not have to sign the contact to be
>> compelled to abide by it. When I walk into
>> a store, I still have to abide by their rules
>> even if I did not sign a contact. Entry =>
>> agreement with the terms of the property.
>> Thus to enter a preexisting claim is to
>> agree to the rules therein, or not, in
>> which case the landlord can use force
>> according to libertarian moral theory.
>>
>
>Ininformed consent is not recognized. Unless the conditions of entrance
>are posted at the entrance, and the property owner will not allow
>entrance until conditions have been read and agreed to, there is no
>informed consent.
IAN: Basically, we agree. The store owner
can also inform you by removing you for a
violation, such as not wearing shoes. The
idea that the owner must post all things
you cannot do in the store on the door
and all things not posted are legal is
excessive in the extreme, yet that's
a logical outcome of your argument:
if x is not posted, x is legal. Better
to have a region in which a set of laws
apply universally, i.e., a country.
The larger point is that all newborns,
i.e., everybody, enters a world in a
state of de facto "uninformed consent,"
but that does not absolve anybody from
having to abide by preexisting claims.
>> Also, if a child is born in an apartment
>> and its parents die sometime thereafter,
>> the landlord, in accord with libertarian
>> theory, has the right to evict the child,
>> to use force against the child, even as
>> the child did not sign any contract.
>
>SO you are saying that since the parents died in the apartment, in
>effect abandoning the child, then under the lease, the landlord can
>claim the child?
IAN: Not at all. I'm saying that the
landlord is not bound to give it free
housing. It's not like if I don't have
to give you free housing I own you. ??
****************************************************************
Ian Williams Goddard ---> http://www.symmetry.net (NOT UP YET)
________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:03 MST